Impeachment successful, previously being processed until its nullification by the Supreme Court
Vote by the Senate to remand the motion to the House of Representatives (June 10, 2025)
Votes in favor
18 / 23(78%)
Votes against
5 / 23(22%)
Result
For certification of the House of Representative of the impeachment complaint for non-violation of the Constitution; and confirmation of the 20th Congress of the lower chamber if it was still willing to pursue the impeachment complaint
Certified the impeachment complaint as constitutional (June 11, 2025)[2] 20th Congress confirmation on whether to pursue the complaint remained pending until its nullification by the Supreme Court
Ruled that the fourth impeachment complaint used to impeach Vice President Duterte was unconstitutional[3]
Vote by the Senate to transfer the articles of impeachment to its archives (August 6, 2025)
Votes in favor
19 / 24(79%)
Votes against
4 / 24(17%)
Present
1 / 24(4%)
Result
Transferred the articles of impeachment to the archives; halted the trial pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by the House before the Supreme Court[4]
The Senate convened months later, despite proponents of the impeachment case calling for the trial to begin immediately. On June 10, 2025, the Senate remanded the articles of impeachment back to the House of Representatives.
On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment complaint against the vice president was unconstitutional, thus barring any attempt to file a case against Duterte until February 6, 2026, and that no trial in the Senate will proceed, as it cannot acquire jurisdiction. The Court, however, maintained that it was not absolving Duterte of the charges filed.[5]
Duterte became the first vice president of the Philippines to be impeached, but she continues to hold office as no final verdict was made by the Senate.
Duterte was appointed as Marcos's first secretary of education after they both took office in mid-2022,[7] although she preferred to be secretary of defense.[8] Over the next two years, Duterte's relationship with Marcos's allies deteriorated, particularly with House SpeakerMartin Romualdez and First LadyLiza Araneta.[7] She resigned in May 2023 from Lakas–CMD where she served as chairperson. Lakas is part of the ruling coalition.[9][10] In January 2024, President Marcos insisted that the UniTeam is still "vibrant", referring to his working relationship with his deputy.[11] Duterte tendered her resignation from her position as education secretary in June 2024.[12] When asked about her friendship with Marcos in September 2024, she said they were never friends and merely running mates in the 2022 elections.[13] Marcos responded by saying he was "deceived" about their supposed friendship.[14] In October 2024, she detailed her fallout with Marcos, who she said "does not know how to be president".[15][16]
Assassination threat
President Bongbong Marcos commented on the assassination threats on November 25
Don't worry, Ma'am, to my security because I already spoke with someone. I told him if I would get killed, you kill BBM, Liza Araneta and Martin Romualdez. No joke, no joke. I gave my orders. If I die — I said, 'Don't stop okay? Until you have killed them,' and he said 'yes.'
During a midnight press conference on November 22, 2024, initiated by Zuleika T. Lopez, Duterte claimed to have spoken with a contract killer to target President Marcos, his wife Liza, and House Speaker Romualdez in the event of her assassination, which the administration deemed an "active threat" against the government.[19][20] She made the statement in response to a vlogger's question over her security.[21] At the time, Duterte had been resisting the transfer of Lopez by House authorities to the Correctional Institution for Women.[22][23] Duterte later clarified that her remarks were not serious threats but rather a reflection of her fear for her personal safety after hearing threats against her.[24][25]
On November 29, Marcos confirmed that he had directed the House of Representatives to refrain from filing an impeachment motion against Sara Duterte. This is despite his rift with Duterte which he described as "a storm in a teacup" and maintained that any potential effort to impeach his deputy would be a waste of time that it "does not make a difference to even one single Filipino life".[26]
Confidential funds controversy
Duterte (far right) refused to take an oath at a congressional hearing on her office's budget use in September 2024.
In 2022 and 2023, Duterte made use of confidential and intelligence funds for both the OVP and DepEd; the OVP under her predecessor did not make use of confidential funds. According to Duterte's chief of staff, due to the OVP's compartmentalized structure, she handled her confidential funds in direct coordination with her office's special disbursing officer Gina F. Acosta without any intermediary.[27][28][29]
In 2024, the lower chamber's Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability started investigations against the vice president's alleged misuse of funds after the approval of the 2025 OVP budget was deferred. On September 25, a former DepEd undersecretary alleged that Duterte gave out cash gifts worth ₱50 thousand monthly;[30] later on, another former official also came forward, claiming that they received similar envelopes but had stopped by late 2023, around the same time the issue of confidential funds was raised.[31] By November 2024, acknowledgement receipts from her offices submitted to the COA were revealed. Several lawmakers have expressed their doubts on the authenticity of the receipts, highlighting irregularities such as uncommon and allegedly fictitious names as well as discrepancies in the dates and signatures.[32][33] Duterte claimed that she has not seen the receipts.[34] On December 9, 2024, the Philippine Statistics Authority reported that the names of 60% of the 677 individuals that were named as recipients of confidential funds from DepEd had no records in the national civil registry.[35]
Duterte has been noted for not issuing explicit statements on the dispute between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. She has declined to comment on the matter, instead deferring people to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defense when queried on such matters.[36][37] For this, she received criticism by some officials, including by allies of Marcos in the House of Representatives[38][39] and Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea Jay Tarriela.[40][41] However, Marcos defended Duterte, stating that "[it is] not the role of the Vice President or the Secretary of Education to talk about China".[42]
Prior impeachment plans
The Makabayan bloc considered filing an impeachment case against Duterte back in August 2023 over alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President for 2022,[43] which ACT Teachers representative France Castro from the Makabayan bloc described as an "impeachable offense".[44] Castro later judged the plan as "premature", citing the need to continue with the House investigation.[45]
In August 2024, Sara Duterte said she expects an impeachment case to be filed against her following her fallout with the president and information she heard from allies within the lower house.[46] In September 2024, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan described the impeachment of Duterte as necessary over her use of confidential funds in 2022 and 2023.[47] In the same month, the House of Representatives denied any plot to file an impeachment complaint.[48]
Complaints
December 2024 complaints
On December 2, 2024, the first formal impeachment case was lodged against Vice President Sara Duterte.[49] The complaint listed 24 articles which was categorized in four points: graft and corruption, bribery, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.[50] Aside from corruption, other cited reasons include her alleged role in the extrajudicial killings of the drug suspects and failure to make a stance against China's aggressive sovereignty claims in the dispute over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea dispute).[49]
The second impeachment complaint against Duterte was filed on December 4, 2024, by 70 activists led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.[51][52] They cited a single reason which is betrayal of public trust over the illegal use and mishandling of confidential funds. Duterte is accused of committing "gross abuse of discretionary powers" over the ₱612.5 million confidential funds of the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education.[51][53][54]
On December 5, 2024, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco disclosed that a third complaint by select members of the House of Representatives was being prepared.[55] The complaint was filed by a group of religious workers, lawyers and civil society workers in the House of Representatives against Duterte on December 19 for betrayal of public trust.[56]
Fourth impeachment complaint
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
On February 5, 2025, 215 members of the House of Representatives signed an impeachment complaint against Duterte on charges that include corruption, plotting to assassinate President Bongbong Marcos, involvement in extrajudicial killings and incitement to insurrection and public disorder. The impeachment complaint attained more than the minimum 102 signatures, or a third of the House of Representatives as required in the Constitution. With the signature threshold reached, the impeachment complaint constitutes as the formal Articles of Impeachment against Duterte and was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. This marks the fourth complaint filed against Duterte.[57] On February 7, House Secretary General Reginald Velasco said that an additional 25 lawmakers had signed documents adding their names in support of the impeachment complaint, putting the total number of signees to 240.[58]
Among the signatories of the impeachment complaint was President Marcos's son, Ilocos Norte representative Sandro Marcos, and Speaker Romualdez. At least 101 lawmakers from Luzon and 40 from the Visayas also signed the complaint. In Duterte's home island of Mindanao, 41 of its 60 district representatives supported impeachment. However, in her native Davao Region, only Davao del Sur representative John Tracy Cagas signed the complaint out a total of 11 district representatives. Thirty-three of 61 party-list representatives also supported impeachment.[59]
Articles of Impeachment
These are the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte:
The third article concerns the allegation that Duterte bribed high ranking Department of Education officials while the fifth article involves her linkage to extrajudicial killings which happened during her father and former president Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs, including the Davao Death Squad.[60]
#
Case
Violation
1
Contracting an assassin and plotting to murder or assassinate the incumbent president, the first lady, and speaker of the House of Representatives, as publicly admitted by her in a live broadcast.
Betrayal of public trust Culpable violation of the constitution Other high crimes
Betrayal of public trust Bribery Graft and corruption
4
Amassing unexplained wealth and failing to disclose all her properties and interests in properties in her statement of assets and net worth (SALN), in Violation of Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Culpable violation of the constitution Betrayal of public trust
5
High crime of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Other high crimes
6
By herself and/or in concert with others, committed acts of destabilization and sedition and insurrection.
Betrayal of public trust Other high crimes
7
Totality of Respondent's conduct as Vice-President, including her commission of the foregoing acts
Betrayal of public trust Culpable violation of the constitution Graft and corruption
Additional votes in favor of impeachment (February 6, 2025; for verification)
Did not vote in favor of impeachment
District is vacant
A total of 215 lawmakers signed the impeachment complaint against vice president Sara Duterte on February 5, 2025. Sandro Marcos (Ilocos Norte–1st), who is also the son of President Bongbong Marcos, was the first to affix his signature; House SpeakerMartin Romualdez was the last. It was noted that 41 out of 60 lawmakers from Mindanao voted to impeach Sara Duterte. In the Duterte family's home region of Davao, only John Tracy Cagas (Davao del Sur) was in favor of the vice president's impeachment.[61]
On the following day, 25 more legislators who were previously not physically present affixed their signatures.[62]
Members of the House of Representatives who signed the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte
House of Representatives members who are members of some of the incumbent senators were noted to have not signed the petition. However, some members of the lower house were overseas and had their e-signatures sent but were not included in the copy endorsed to the Senate. Stephen Paduano of Abang Lingkod said that Dino Yulo and others did sign the complaint but their signatures were not included in the endorsed copy.[64]
Members of the House of Representatives who did not sign the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte
The Senate received the complaint from the House of Representatives on February 5, 2025, which also coincided with the last day of Senate session. The Articles of Impeachment were received by Senate secretary Renato Bantug at 5:49p.m. but it was not reported to the plenary before it adjourned at 7:00p.m.[65] The Senate is obliged to convene as an impeachment court to process the complaint but there was no immediate schedule released.[57]
Senate President Chiz Escudero maintained that the Senate cannot start the proceedings until after the Congress reconvene on June 2, 2025.[65][66] He has set that the trial proper to be held on July 30, 2025.[67] He further maintained maintained that a trial cannot be "legally" started during this period since he believe that there has to be an ongoing session for the Senate to convene as an impeachment court.[68]
Lawyer Catalino Generillo Jr. on February 14 filed a petition for mandamus, before the Supreme Court arguing that the Senate has the "inescapable constitutional duty" to immediately start the trial.[69] On February 18, a group of Mindanao-based lawyers filed a certiorari and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the start of the trial.[70] On the same day, Sara Duterte also sent a petition to the Supreme Court asking for the nullification of the impeachment complaint.[71]
Senator Ronald dela Rosa insisted he will remain "apolitical" while admitting his close ties to Duterte.[72] When asked what is the implication of his participation in the National Rally for Peace in January 2025, Senator Robin Padilla committed to "definitely" vote "no" for Duterte's impeachment.[73]
In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
Senate minority leader Koko Pimentel said that the course of the impeachment could be affected by the fact that the terms of 12 of the chamber's members are due to end on June 30, along with the results of the 2025 Philippine Senate election on May 12.[74]
Assuming that the Senate convene on June 2, there are six session days left until the 19th Congress ends on June 13 which made Escudero conclude that the impeachment trial would be heard by the 20th Congress.[75] Escudero projects the trial to begin in July 2025 after President Marcos makes his State of the Nation Address,[76] with a verdict due in October 2025.[77]
Nevertheless, proponents of the impeachment insist that the Constitution obligates that the "trial by the Senate shall proceed forthwith," or as soon as possible. They suggest that the President may call in a special session for this purpose.[78] Pressure on the Senate persisted until at least June.[79][80][81][82]
On May 29, Escudero made a motion to move the presentation of the articles of impeachment to June 11, the last session day of the 19th Congress.[83]
On June 4, Dela Rosa admitted drafting a resolution seeking the "de facto dismissal" of the impeachment case.[84]
On June 9, 2025, minority senators Risa Hontiveros and Koko Pimentel attempted to formally start the trial of vice president Duterte. Minority leader Pimentel raised the motion to commence the process with the following proposals were.[85]
The Senate suspend its legislative business
The convening of the Senate as an impeachment court immediately instead of Wednesday (June 11)
Senate President Chiz Escudero take his oath as presiding officer
Escudero should administer the oath of senators present
The impeachment court call the impeachment case against Vice President Duterte and come up with trial calendar
The impeachment court ask prosecutors to read impeachment articles on Tuesday (June 10)
The writ of summons be subsequently issued to Duterte.
This was followed by two hours of debate on technicalities, then additional two hours for suspension of proceedings.[85] At around 5:42p.m., Robin Padilla filed a resolution that sought to terminate the impeachment proceedings.[86]
Escudero took his oath as proposed but it was agreed that the rest of the senators take their oaths by 4p.m the next day.[87] Hontiveros and Pimentel argues that the oath taking means that the trial has already convened but Ronald Dela Rosa disagrees leading to another suspension. The trial did not start on that day.[85]
June 10: Remanding of the articles of impeachment
The five Senators who voted no to remand the articles of impeachment to the House.
Escudero administered the oath to the rest of the twenty-two senators.[88] Dela Rosa made a motion to dismiss before and after the oath-taking, which the Senate did not take action on. Pimentel and Hontiveros urged their colleagues "cold neutrality", which meant that legal objections should be raised by the aggrieved party or Duterte herself.[89]
Bong Go, during deliberations on Dela Rosa's motion, suggested returning the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives. Dela Rosa also alleged that the House of Representatives was inactive over the three impeachment complaints filed in December 2023, preceding the current complaint. Cayetano modified Dela Rosa's motion, stating it should be returned to the lower house to certify the complaint did not violate the "one impeachment per year" clause.[90]
However, the Senate voted on a motion by Alan Peter Cayetano not to dismiss or terminate the proceedings but to return the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives. The motion obliges that:[90]
The House of Representatives certifies the non-violation of Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which provides that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year"; including the circumstances on the filing of the first three impeachment complaints
The House of Representatives of the 20th Congress communicates to the Senate that it is willing and ready to pursue the impeachment complaint against the Vice President.
Motion to remand the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives[90] (Senators of the 19th Congress)
The writ of summons was issued to Duterte by Escudero, a move which was opposed by Dela Rosa. Sergeant-at-Arms Roberto Ancan was asked to deliver the document.[91][92] The Office of the Vice President received the document at 11:05am. on the following day. Duterte is asked to respond ten days from receipt.[93]
Response of the House
June 11: House certifies the impeachment complaint
The House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution certifying the impeachment complaint's compliance with the constitution in response to the Senate remand. At the same time, it approved a motion deferring acceptance of the articles of impeachment until the Senate responds to the queries sought by the House prosecution panel regarding the remanding.[94]
Response of the defense
June 23: Answer Ad Cautelam to the House and reply to Senate summons
Vice President Duterte submitted an answer ad cautelam[c] to the House of Representatives on June 23 at 3:53p.m., as confirmed by House spokesperson Princess Abante, pleading for the dismissal of the impeachment case on the grounds that it "violated the one-year bar rule" of the Constitution. The same rationale was cited in a separate answer ad cautelam submitted to the Senate at 5:49p.m. in response to the issuance of summons. Under the Senate impeachment rules, the House prosecutors have five days to file a reply; however, since June 28 falls on a Saturday, the prosecution panel is allowed to submit their reply until Monday, June 30.[95][96] House prosecution spokesperson Antonio Bucoy announced the following day that the panel is ready to file their reply as early as Friday, June 27.[97]
Reply of the prosecution
June 27: House prosecution panel responds to the Vice President's Answer Ad Cautelam
The House prosecution panel responded to the arguments of Vice President Duterte in her answer ad cautelam filed before the impeachment court on June 27. Atty. Reginald Tongol confirmed that the court received the House's reply at 1:38p.m., wherein the prosecution asked that the court deny the vice president's request to dismiss the impeachment case, emphasizing that the gravity of the charges demands a full trial and a final verdict of conviction. Several falsehoods were countered by the prosecutors on the defense's claims:[98][99]
The prosecution stated that the vice president acknowledged the receipt of the articles through an answer, refuting her claim that the court possesses no jurisdiction on the articles of impeachment after they were remanded to the House.
The fourth impeachment complaint approved in February 2025 was the only one "initiated" by the House, not the previous three filed in December of the previous year, disproving the claim that it violated the Constitution's one-year bar rule.
The defense was said to have modified a Supreme Court decision to favor their camp regarding the issue of whether the impeachment proceedings can carry over to the 20th Congress, with the prosecution pointing out that the said ruling provided that non-legislative functions are maintained even in transitions between congresses.
The prosecution stated that all articles filed against the vice president are substantiated and based on facts and evidentiary matters, contrary to Duterte arguing otherwise.
Impeachment trial
Senator-judges
16 out of the sitting 24 senators needed to vote Duterte to be liable in one of the impeachable offenses for her to be removed as vice president and be perpetually disqualified from holding any public office.[100]
The terms of 12 senators in the 19th Congress expired on June 30, 2025. Had the Senate convened as a court in the 20th Congress, these lawmakers would not be able to take part unless they won a fresh mandate in the 2025 election. There have been arguments that the case could and could not crossover to the 20th Congress.[101][102]
Keys
A: Term ending on June 30, 2028 (incumbent)
E: Term ending on June 30, 2025 (re-elected)
O: Term ending on June 30, 2025 (re-election lost)
X: Term ending on June 30, 2025 (term limited)
N: Newly elected senator; assuming office on June 30, 2025.
On June 11, 2025, Senate President Francis Escudero appointed Reginald Tongol as the spokesperson of the impeachment court. In a press statement, Escudero stated that Tongol’s appointment takes effect immediately and will remain in place until the conclusion of the 19th Congress. He emphasized that Tongol’s role would be crucial in ensuring that information surrounding the impeachment proceedings is communicated “accurately, responsibly, and in a timely manner that fosters public trust.”
Escudero further described Tongol as bringing “an exceptional blend of legal expertise and media acumen to the impeachment court,” noting his understanding of key issues and commitment to transparent communication. Tongol is a political communications consultant with experience in both legal and media affairs.[103][104]
Legal teams
Prosecution
The House of Representatives named 11 of its members who will serve as prosecutors. They were to defend the lower house's motion to impeach Vice President Duterte before the Senate acting as the impeachment court.[105]4Ps Partylist representative and House Minority Leader Marcelino Libanan was named as the informal lead prosecutor.[106][107] The House also received offers for legal assistance from third party lawyers.[108] If a trial had started after the 19th Congress, prosecutors Loreto Acharon and Jil Bongalon would not return to the House after losing their seats in the 2025 House elections. Speaker Romualdez invited representatives-elect Leila de Lima and Chel Diokno to take their places if a trial resumed in the 20th Congress.[109][110]
Key
Italics
Outgoing representative from the 2025 general elections
Underline
Incoming representative from the 2025 general elections
The prosecution has also named litigation lawyer Antonio Bucoy as their spokesperson.[111]
Defense
According to Sara Duterte, her legal team had already begun preparations as early as November 2023 in anticipation of her impeachment.[69] In December 2024, her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, offered to join the defense team.[112] On June 16, 2025, the Senate impeachment court, through the Secretary of the Senate acting as Clerk of Court, received the formal list of lawyers entering their appearance as counsel for the vice president. Through a press release, the court confirmed the Clerk's receipt of the Appearance Ad Cautelam from the law firm of Fortun Narvasa & Salazar, with sixteen undersigned lawyers:[113]
Duterte has named Michael Poa, her former spokesperson at the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Education, as the spokesperson for the defense, of which he is a member.[114]
Postponement of the start of trial
The Senate impeachment court announced on June 25 that the commencement of trial proceedings would be postponed until the House prosecution panel was reconstituted in accordance with the composition of the incoming 20th Congress. Senate President Escudero clarified that since some members of the previous Congress lost their re-election bids while others are assuming different positions, a new prosecution panel must be formed. Preparations were also said to be continuing despite the further delay.[115] Escudero was later said to have expressed that he aims to convene the court on July 29, a day after President Marcos's fourth State of the Nation Address.[116]
Constitutionality of the Articles of Impeachment
July 25: Nullification by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court unanimously nullified the impeachment complaint on July 25, 2025, ruling that it was "unconstitutional".[117] The Court stated that the "one year-bar rule" was already covered by the first three impeachment cases, rendering the fourth one invalid. No complaints can be filed before the House of Representatives until February 6, 2026, one year after the majority of the House voted in favor of the fourth complaint used to impeach the vice president.[5]
Ruling whether the impeachment complaint against Vice President Duterte is unconstitutional[117] (Justices of the Supreme Court)
No trial before the Senate will be held as a result, as the chamber cannot acquire jurisdiction as per the court ruling.[118]
Response
On the evening of the decision, Senator Joel Villanueva claimed the impeachment court will continue convening despite the decision of the Supreme Court. He cited precedence in the impeachment court's actions during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona in 2011, where the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, but the Senate voted to ultimately ignore it.[119]
On August 4, 2025, the House of Representatives, via the Office of the Solicitor General as its counsel, appealed before the Supreme Court by filing a motion for reconsideration based on its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional, days before the provided 15-day deadline.[120][121]
The Senate held a vote on August 6, in which it voted to transfer the articles of impeachment to its archives, after reviewing the court's 97-page decision.[122] During the proceedings, several spectators who belonged to Akbayan made a thumbs down gesture before walking out after being approached by Senate staff.[123]
Motion to transfer the articles of impeachment to the archives (Senators of the 20th Congress)
Antonio Soriano of the Citizens' Watch for Good Governance questioned the "shotgun" approach of the impeachment complaint. Soriano says that intent regarding Duterte's threat against the president has to be proven. He also believes that Duterte's action under the capacity of mayor of Davao City cannot be used for grounds for her impeachment and details of her alleged misused of confidential funds cannot be publicly disclosed.[124] Soriano even speculated that the motions might even benefit a potential electoral bid of Duterte in the upcoming 2028 elections.[124]
The impeachment procedure was seen gaining traction in the House of Representatives, but the same was not certain in the Senate, as a two-thirds supermajority of 16 out of 24 votes is needed to convict Duterte.[124][125]
Ronald Llamas of the Galahad Consulting Agency, and political advisor of former president Benigno Aquino III, believes that delaying the impeachment proceedings to after the 2025 mid-term elections would render Marcos a lame-duck president. Llamas said that Marcos's earlier pronouncement to discourage impeachment proceedings can either be taken "at face value" or as a "tactical move"[126] He previously said in August 2024 that formal impeachment proceedings were likely to begin before the 2025 election.[127]
Following the election, Navotas representative Toby Tiangco, who served as campaign manager for Marcos's senatorial slate, Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas, said that Alyansa's standings in Mindanao were adversely affected by the impeachment motion against Sara Duterte.[128]Surigao del Norte representative Ace Barbers called the claim "misleading", noting that the majority of lawmakers in Mindanao who signed the impeachment complaint were reelected.[129]
It is unclear if Duterte could have avoided disqualification by resigning before a conviction. Associate justice Antonio Carpio believes she could do so, while constitutional law professor and lawyer Antonio La Viña differs saying the trial may still proceed despite a potential resignation. While a resignation may prove to be moot and academic, the imposition of the disqualification from public office may still be done. Constitutional law expert Paolo Tamase has a similar opinion describing the issue "open question". Tamase cites the second impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump in 2021 where the United States Senate still proceeded with the trial despite Trump already ending his first term. Tamase asserts that Article XI, Section 3(7) is based on the American constitution.[130]
Response
The Office of the President on December 3 distanced itself from the issue and reiterated its stance of discouraging any impeachment motion against Duterte, stating that it was the right of private citizens to make such moves.[131] Senate President Francis Escudero had advised his colleagues not to make public pronouncements about the impeachment complaints.[126]
After the impeachment motion was passed in the House of Representatives, Sara Duterte said in an address that being rejected by a romantic partner was worse than the impeachment itself, while uttering "God save the Philippines".[144] On May 16, shortly after the 2025 election, Duterte said she would "truly want a trial" desiring for a "bloodbath".[145]
Had Duterte been convicted, Marcos could have selected among the qualified members of the House of Representatives and Senate to fill the vacancy.[146] She would also be ineligible to run for any public position in future elections, including the presidency.[147]
↑ Duterte was solely impeached, but was never convicted or acquitted by the Philippine Senate after its decision to archive the impeachment articles following the Supreme court's nullification of the complaint.
↑ Francisco, Abner (November 23, 2024). "Malacañang alerts presidential guards on VP Sara's 'death threats' to PBBM, others". Brigada News Philippines. Brigada Group of Companies. Archived from the original on May 27, 2025. Retrieved November 26, 2024. In a virtual press conference on Saturday morning, Duterte addressed the question from Princess Maui, a Duterte supporter who expressed concern over the security of the vice president.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
